[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[MarshaV]

Yeaahhhh Ian!!!!!!!   




On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:

> Inserted [IG] below Krim, (and all) ...
> 
> (You did ignore my plea for some downside review of practical snags
> etc ... but hey - I believe this is an important conversation.)
> 
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>>> [Ian]
>>> My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics...
>>> 
>>> [Krimel]
>>> Taoism.
>> 
>>> [Ian]
>>> Go on, Krim, I'm listening (and don't forget to consider
>>> the downside / abuses / risks as well ...)
>> 
>> [Krimel]
>> Pirsig does a pretty good job with this in ZMM. I will never understand why
>> he messes it up so in Lila.
> 
> [IG] It's blindingly obvious why the approach changes in Lila - you
> call it messing up, I call it introducing some probably unnecessary
> complications. Hey, that's life. He wanted to address his rhetorical
> arguments in ZMM to a more formal philosophy audience in Lila. He wins
> no prizes for engagement with academic philosophy - he alienates them
> by branding them philosophologists for a start - but that has no
> bearing on whether his metaphysics is any good.
> 
>> Basically the idea is that we apprehend and name
>> the world through oppositions, white/black, big/small, ugly beautiful etc.
> 
> [IG] You are simply suggesting this is the GOF / SOM / Classical view
> that prevails ? No argument.
> 
>> The Way or the path of virtue is understanding the world less through
>> opposition than through harmony. Opposites are not usually matters of
>> either/or but of balance and proper relationship.
> 
> [IG] You are telling me ? My main cracked-record mantra.
> 
>> 
>> I think one of the problems with the MoQ is Pirsig's effort at metaphysical
>> stone cutting. He pictures this as revolving around finding the "right"
>> first cut. Personally, since his locates his first cut about were Taoist
>> have traditionally place emphasis I thought he had it nailed until arriving
>> here four or five years ago.
> 
> [IG] My perspective is different. I saw this based on practical
> experience before I'd ever heard of Pirsig or the Tao. But OK.
> 
>> Now I see it as a mistake to regard even the
>> static/dynamic split as essential to Taoism which metaphysically handles all
>> oppositions.
> 
> [IG] Absolutely. There is nothing "essential" about the foundation of
> any metaphysics. It is always a choice. The proof is in the working
> (problem solving) value of the metaphysics thus constructed.
> 
>> The emphasis on static and dynamic is mainly a matter of a
>> particularly ubiquitous set of oppositions. Thing are changing or like to
>> change or stationary and unlike to move.
> 
> [IG] Now this is a key point. (we're still not talking about the value
> of levels and patterns notice - just the ineffable core of the MoQ -
> Quality and the first split.) Dynamic is the key point. Yes, in
> everyday language everything is moving and static to some extent - a
> sliding scale. BUT DQ is not about "things that move". In fact NOTHING
> in the world is absolutely static. Everything is always changing. It
> is always a matter of timescales. BUT DQ is about the bleeding edge of
> existence - radical empirical - totally dynamic, not yet part of ANY
> reified or conceptualized pattern or object. Something that is part of
> the possibility in every change, but not part of any pattern or
> object. For me the Tao is about being open to that bleeding-edge of DQ
> possibility at any possible moment.
> 
>> 
>> That sense of harmony which characterizes Lao Tsu's descriptions of The Way
>> seems at least to be inborn and them amplified by culture. We have a sense
>> of the world that is right for us. We sense harmonious relationships which
>> is what I take Pirsig to be saying. That sense of harmony is like our sense
>> of direction or our senses of time, space and probability.
> 
> [IG] Hmm. Inborn ? In humans, or in existence generally ? Harmony is
> indeed a key concept - integration rather than opposition, to return
> to the mantra. It is that feeling we humans have that this is innate
> "common sense" which makes these views so attractive - I agree, me too
> - but by itself, that doesn't give us any practical framework for
> life's decisions and actions, other than a subjectively relative one,
> does it ? We need a bit more than "if it feels good do it". That's
> just a start.
> 
>> 
>> The biggest problem with the MoQ account of this is the idea of "betterness"
>> which I would call "harmony". Betterness and harmony are not properties of
>> DQ or SQ they are properties of the relationship or proportion of SQ to DQ.
>> In is not a matter of DQ good, SQ bad.
> 
> [IG] Clearly not. Did anyone ever suggest it was ? (Properties of ...
> etc. ... we're objectivising Q and DQ too much here ?)
> 
>> It is a matter of the balance of DQ
>> and SQ. Pirsig plays lip service to this but even a casual stroll through
>> the archives will reveal that it is Pirsig waxing rhapsodically about DQ
>> that really catches on. People here seem to think the DQ is "betterness" and
>> that it is more important than SQ. I think they are wrong on both counts.
> 
> [IG] I already agreed with you. The DQ of possibility needs the static
> latches of SQ / PoV's. Lip service ? It's called rhetoric, where's the
> surprise ?
> 
> [IG] OK so we like the ineffable Tao at the core of DQ. But that's not
> a useful (pragmatically applicable) metaphysics by itself, not
> something individuals and society can apply to moral governance of
> their activities. And any metaphysics we build will have its good
> points AND its risks - like Zen monks arming themselves for
> nationalist wars, maybe. The MoQ may be imperfect, but it's a lot more
> than an ineffable core idea open to abuse.
> 
> Regards
> Ian
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___